General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumspeggysue2
(10,839 posts)inconveniently true. So, let the mashing machine begin
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Gun manufacturers are the ONLY manufacturer of any item immuned from being sued. That's a dag shame.
Igel
(35,356 posts)They can't be sued when their products are used. If a thief uses a ladder to break into my house or somebody stabs my cousin to death with a kitchen knife, a lawsuit against the ladder or knife company or the store that sold it to me would be dismissed as frivolous.
If I say, "I'm going to use this knife for killing my cousin" and the store owner says, "Here you go," he's liable. If I am ordering the knife from the manufacturer and say my intent is to kill people, the manufacturer is liable.
Not suing a company for the misuse of their product in the commission of a crime is standard, unless there's some reason for them to be considered liable.
The gun manufacturers were being the subject of the opposite assumption. That by making a deadly product, they were complicit in all the crimes committed with their product. The product was designed to be defective; it's manufacturer was a litigably criminal act. Even if most of the guns weren't used to commit crimes, well, the manufacturers had to know that they *could* be used in that way. Unlike, say, a knife manufacturer, who must be completely unawares that the meat their knives cut could be part of a living human. Knives, I guess, aren't weapons of war. (Even if some were designed for the Army and issued to soldiers. I could buy such a weapon of war at my local army surplus store about 1 1/2 miles away.)
This assumption was part of a strategy to shut down gun manufacturers. We could mount the same campaign against ladder or knife companies. Some judges and juries would buy the argument, with the right emotional appeal. but on (legal) appeal that would be overturned. But the goal of such lawfare isn't the occasional victory, but the costs inflicted by 20 or 30 plaintiffs all going through discovery, all the media attention, and the other legal costs. It's the same kind of thinking that begot a lot of legal action against providers of abortion and other family-planning services. If you can't get a right annulled and can't win the social argument, drive the providers of services and products you personally disagree with out of business.
So the legislation that protects gun manufacturers pretty much re-instated the usual default assumptions. It still lets the usual kinds of cases proceed, meaning that they are not immune from being sued.
BTW, if such a campaign were waged against, say drug companies for accidental death by opioids (as opposed to the quasi-legal pushing that's obvious evidence of misentrustment), knife companies for knife deaths, or cars for the murders committed by their product, I'd support the same kind of legislation.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)issue.
The crux of civil litigation would not be based on product liability so your entire analogy with ladders is not relevant.
The crux of the litigation would be on marketing and distribution liability in which somebody is killed by a gun that was distributed and sold with an intention to avoid legal restrictions or is other wise nefarious.
For example if they distribute to a store that is a few yards from a state line and the restrictions in the other state would make owning that gun illegal but the manufacturer distributes guns to 5 gun retailers who sell in excess of 2000% of what normal gun sales would be for that small border town then the gun manufacturer obviously knows and assists in selling guns to out of state residents in a deliberate attempt to go around the laws of the other state.
It is that kind of liability that gun owners should be held responsible for and is not covered by anything you said.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
brer cat
(24,605 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)mcar
(42,372 posts)Thanks grantcart.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Leaving aside the fact that nothing on the scale of what you describe has been alleged, crimes were committed in the above hypothetical scenario. The out-of-state resident who bought that gun and the dealer who sold it to him/her both broke the law. You cannot legally sell someone a gun that isn't legal to possess in his/her state of residence, even if it is legal in the state of sale.
What you're saying is that civil litigation aimed at the gun industry should take the place of enforcement of existing gun laws. That's hard to see as anything but harassment of an industry that isn't breaking any laws.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)This study shows that residents going over the border to purchase and take back guns is common and in some cases (like Chicago where it has been extensively studied) it can account for more than 60% of the crime.
There have been numerous studies that have proved the issue but this is one of the better summaries
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-laws-stop-at-state-lines-but-guns-dont/
A manufacturer who is aware that its distribution system is clearly avoiding law enforcement opens up a liability and can be sued. Nothing I have said indicates that "that civil litigation aimed at the gun industry should take the place of enforcement of existing gun laws".
That is simply bull shit straw man, but would expect that from someone who takes the moniker.
The point is simple: if a gun manufacturer is aware that their distribution of guns was designed to get guns into the hands of people likely to use it in an illegal way, whether directly or indirectly they can be sued and face a jury that will determine civil liability. Cases like this have been brought and won on a similar basis.
The OP that I was responding too was arguing that the gun manufacturers could only be sued for product liability and he was wrong.
The 1998 settlement on cigarettes was heavily weighted on sales and marketing not product.
Cities and states are suing pharmaceutical companies in a similar way on the way that they are marketing opiods
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/lawsuit-pharmaceutical-companies-opioids/529020/
In legal terms the issue of creating a liability through improper distribution is called "negligent entrustment". Cases have been filed against gun manufacturers but they were dismissed because of the PLCAA which gives gun manufacturers immunity that no other manufacturer has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_entrustment
Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in tort law that arises where one party (the entrustor) is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party (the entrustee) with a dangerous instrumentality, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality. The cause of action most frequently arises where one person allows another to drive their automobile.
. . .
Negligent entrustment is generally found where the entrustee had a reputation or record that showed his propensity to be dangerous through possession of such an instrumentality
So if a gun was used to kill someone and it could be proven that the manufacturer sold that gun to a gun retailer who was known to be circumventing the law then the manufacturer could face civil liabilities except that the gun manufacturers have an immunity that no other manufacturer in the US has. That is the legislation that Senator Sanders, a few Democrats and all of the Republicans voted for under duress from the NRA.
Here is the Brady Campaign template on how to sue for negligent entrustment even with the PCAA
https://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/vice-avoiding-dismissal.pdf
This paper focuses on gun manufacturer and dealer liability relating to gun distribution.2 Gun distribution cases are generally based on two causes of action negligence and public nuisance.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Please tell me how a gun manufacturer can avoid this situation. Not supply retailers that are near to high crime areas with strict gun laws? Sounds like a civil liberties issue to me. If retailers are suspected of illegal activities, then the retailers should be targeted for criminal prosecution.
Except that you just did exactly that: You are claiming that a gun manufacturer should be able to determine that its distribution system is "clearly avoiding law enforcement," yet if this is "clearly" happening, why is no law-enforcement action being taken?
Again, how does the manufacturer know that the retailer is "circumventing the law"? Is the manufacturer expected to conduct investigations?
The "bad apple dealer" myth is attractive to the gun-control movement, but I would suggest to you that the prevalence of certain dealers as the origin of a lot of crime guns has more to do with the scale of their operations than with any illegal activity. This whole effort is an overreach by which municipalities are attempting to extend the effective scope of their gun-control laws through civil lawsuits.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)anyway.
Thanks for putting the FACTS out there!
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)They don't sound like progressives do they?
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... is not a progressive concept.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)I hope there comes a day when we can get them.
thucythucy
(8,086 posts)Your discussion has been very informative.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,373 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)There are already tons of state and federal laws regarding gun sales.
For example in the hypothetical you gave above that retailer would be breaking federal law, because dealers must sell to a person according to the laws of the state of residence.
If there was evidence they were intentionally violating that then the proper place for that is criminal court, not civil.
If criminal charges cant stick because they are, in fact, following the law then there isnt really any merit to a civil case.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)MrModerate
(9,753 posts)Can certainly be sanctioned. The lack of commonsense safety controls (biometric trigger locks, for instance) on firearms is appalling -- and should be legally actionable.
lark
(23,155 posts)That's what gun makers are doing in effect.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)vaccinations, remember??
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and because vaccinations good public health policy.
Can't really say the same thing about firearms.
Sid
womanofthehills
(8,761 posts)until they sold their flu vaccine business for millions a few yrs ago.
Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg, however, argued in their dissent that by shielding drugmakers from lawsuits, what the government is actually doing is removing the pressure to create better and safer vaccines.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/02/23/supreme-court-no-you-cant-sue-drugmakers-over-vaccine-injury-claims/#.WvilWsgh02I
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)given your anti-vax opinions.
Sid
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)alarimer
(16,245 posts)And even without the votes of every single Democrat and Independent.
OnDoutside
(19,970 posts)Mike Nelson
(9,966 posts)...guns was a relative weak area for Bernie, but it makes sense when you consider his constituency, I guess... he was on CNN today and sounded very much like a 2020 candidate. He should make some noise about gun control, to clean up...
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)He defended his vote in the 2016 election. Gun manufacturers should be the only manufacturer of any item in the world immune from lawsuits. That was his position. As a person of color who is affected by guns I am baffled when he called for opiate manufactures to be sued. To me, it felt as though he made his priorities clear.. The lives of mostly whites affected by opiates matter more than the lives of mostly POC affected by guns.
Response to Tavarious Jackson (Reply #7)
RandomAccess This message was self-deleted by its author.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)We hear the same crap about the inheritance tax, farm subsidies, low minimum wages, tax cuts and other policies intended to protect or provide windfalls to corporate interests - we always get small business thrown up as the cover when, in reality, its not small businesses that benefit but huge cioprporate interests,
Bernies excuse for this is pure bullshit right out of the Republican playbook.
erronis
(15,328 posts)The best defense is a good offense.
First, pollute the common use of phrases and then take them on to mean the opposite.
Karl Marx, perhaps Greek and Roman orators knew this.
The repuglicons (Rove, Cheney, Gingrich) are well-trained.
Why are the dems still so idealistic and hoping that everyone will see the light?
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Of this type of brainwashing BS. Yep.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)which is a way to protect the smaller businesses from the effects.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)As per their defense for denying contraceptive coverage to their employees.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)sheshe2
(83,898 posts)But Sanders argument obfuscates the true impact of his votenamely, that the lawsuits he helped derail once represented the most viable effort in decades to stem the flow of guns onto the black market.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/bernie-sanders-vote-gun-immunity-black-market/
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Can see where Sanders comes from about that old bill with his statement in the article.
The article is from 2016- Sanders said this quote from the article the same year during his first D debate.
If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and that murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Sanders asked during the first Democratic debate in October. Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Because of widespread hunting there. Howard Dean had that issue; he enjoyed the support of the local NRA because of habitat issues for hunters, but the national NRA definitely did not support him because of his support for sensible gun control nationwide. But Bernie isn't talking about hunting or habitat; he's talking about national gun issues. He evidently doesn't want ANY gun control nationally, given his consistent pro-NRA votes.
George II
(67,782 posts)....holding the gun manufacturers responsible for their products.
No excuse whatsoever for not backing gun control. Period.
xor
(1,204 posts)But rather centers around how different people have different views on what gun control means. To some that means an almost complete ban on all firearms, whereas there are also many gun owning democrats who support various forms of gun control but think citizens have the right to own guns.
I always try to clarify what someone means when they say gun control, and also how they believe their idea will reduce specific concerns about guns. Without that clarification, I find people just talk past each other and never fully develop their own ideas or understand the views of the other side.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....I haven't seen a single bill that warranted a no vote (although I'm sure there are a few)
mcar
(42,372 posts)Can you list some examples?
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)the "any kind" part includes part legislation.
In all fairness, George II has clarified that s/he meant gun control legislation that has been proposed recently.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Most of this problem goes away once we overturn the NRA bought and paid for SC decision known as "Heller"
mcar
(42,372 posts)The NRA hangs it's hat on Heller. Even Scalia said that gun rights are not unlimited.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)That seems to be a fundamental misapprehension about how rights work.
This was one reason that some of the founders were leery of even passing the bill of rights- they thought future generations might perceive them as exhaustive of all rights.
No, rights predate the bill of rights- 'that governments are instituted among men to protect them'.
e.g. The right of free passage (also called the right to travel)- is not mentioned in the constitution or the BoR, but is a right nonetheless.
The right to medical privacy didn't spring up from whole cloth in 1973- it was a pre-existing right that until that point had not been explicitly protected by either the judiciary or the legislature.
It's a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people may'. Read the preamble to the BoR:
Abuse of whose powers? Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom?
honest.abe
(8,685 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Even the NRA supports some gun control.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)By all means, attack that strawman....
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)"All progressives should be 100% in favor of gun control of any kind..."
I'll repeat because you didn't catch it the first time, "...of any kind."
George II has clarified since that the s/he is referring to most of the legislation presented recently.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Please tell us.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)I spoke of mindless support of legislation of "any kind".
But there are some nearly useless gun control laws such as AWBs and import bans of non-sporting rifles.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)disagreeing with you.
I read your posts.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)R B Garr
(16,976 posts)It matches the sentiment that Bernie's image is the priority, certainly not gun control...
RandySF
(59,224 posts)He already has the right doing it
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)on our discourse. I've brought this up before, including to the owners of a site named that, and no one seems to want to hear me, but I know it's problematic. It can't help to be.
It:
* legitimizes the alt.right - BIG TIME
* delegitimizes the left, all of it
* hands a wedge issue and manufactured insult, to the right -- while simultaneously legitimizing them
* is false equivalency by definition: there IS no segment of the left that resembles or is equivalent equates to the the violence-prone, violence-loving, violence-promoting alt right
* and there is no equivalent on the left to the hatred of the alt right
I hope you'll consider these points and their inevitable outcomes and will cease using it.
RandySF
(59,224 posts)- Threatens reporters who publish "negative" stories about their candidates.
- Urges people to stay home on Election Day
- Calls Elizabeth Warren a sell-out if she doesn't endorse their preferred candidate.
- Say there is no proof Russia did nothing wrong in 2016.
- Peddle the Uranium-One stories and other conspiracy theories against the Clintons.
- Cheered on Trump when he was called the winner in 2016.
- Sit to dinner with Mike Flynn and Vladimir Putin
- Post anti-immigrant comments on progressive sites
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)i consider myself alt left and I've never endorsed any of those things. zero. the people who do are a minuscule part. as always, I could be wrong
Ferrets are Cool
(21,110 posts)the repugs use it for ANYONE who is a progressive or democrat. They don't differentiate and lump all "lefties" as that term. It is the reason that I wont legitimize it.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)confused with Russian trolls and bots -- with the exception of Jill Stein.
Even if there are some genuine people who fit your other categories, their numbers are so small they STILL don't earn an alt.left tag.
IOW, it's still problematic.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)on Temporary Suspension.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210610602
So what does that say?
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)I am sorry that the person who posted this tweet is having issues on twitter.
It is a great tweet
Cha
(297,655 posts)All he did was tweet a vid of David Hogg speaking the truth.
Response to Cha (Reply #141)
Tavarious Jackson This message was self-deleted by its author.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)And that's all I have to say about that. I won't go into details for obvious reasons.
Cha
(297,655 posts)it could be so HAPPY!
Mahalo, Jackie!
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)It's an anti-Senator Sanders account, an old one. Similar to how breibart used Hoggs anti- republican/anti NRA statements in march 2018 & April 2018 single 'pro NRA tweet' against the young man.
This is the way Republican party (paid media businesses) work against Ds-they take a statement and twist it to shit.
Here's a link-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/14/hogg-goes-calling-nra-pathetic-fckers-tweeting-nra-gun-safety-guidelines/
Cha
(297,655 posts)Hogg had to say about his record of history.
The patriot needs his account back.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)one liners from patriots are used by extremely crafty media 'players' to totally twist youths chance to make real change in USAs gun laws.
Now they're pushing the youths tweets of NRA gun safety material. His state will never ban military assault gun sales now like a couple other states recently have.
SC even just upheld ,it is constitutional for a state to 'mandate' to ban assault weapon sales.
yet people fight over tweets because media directs the discussion.
Cha
(297,655 posts)her account back
lark
(23,155 posts)They exist to ensure the rw winning, whether wittingly or stupidly.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)from Hillary. all it took was a couple hundred votes-couple thousand in many counties and states.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Same way they helped destroy someone else recently.
mcar
(42,372 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)chat for being too much of a cheerleader for electing Democrats and for calling out KGB talking points.
Real sad situation we are in.
mcar
(42,372 posts)Good gad!
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)and I quote "I am sick and tired of hearing about Hillary Clinton and the good things she does"
And this was someone who claims to be liberal or progressive. But is in fact just brainwashed and almost as dumb as the folks on the right.
mcar
(42,372 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)It says both tend toward being totalitarian assholes that are intolerant to any view but their own.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)among "the GOOD Democrats" calling for a level of fealty and acceptance of authority that it makes my head spin. Those of you claiming this have NOTHING to stand on to claim your imagined moral superiority. And ya'll are perilously close to rivaling the right in that regard.
It's downright frightening at times to see the unmitigated authoritarianism so rampant here among the left. SMH
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I choose the less bad or the two fucking choices that I have to chose from and hope like hell that others have enough sense to do the same. I don't put a gun to anyone's head and have never seen truly progressive DUERS do that either.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)you don't understand my point. At all.
Oh well. AFAIC, your loss.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,110 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)As a practical move to elect more Democrats rather than Republicans, put aside one issue or expectation of things that could only be gained with a population far more to the left than we have. That's encouraging that decision. Not saying change your mind as the authority says. Don't change your mind, just don't give up on voting because right now we won't have a Congress that will pass single payer, etc. No one is saying just give in to authority. March lockstep when necessary, to win, not because you are surrendering your actual opinions and will always walk lockstep.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Such a waste of her ability to Lead to just retire.
ecstatic
(32,731 posts)or something.
Fla_Democrat
(2,547 posts)Fla_Democrat
(2,547 posts)LonePirate
(13,431 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)sheshe2
(83,898 posts)He only just reached voting age and he speaks the truth. He hasn't left his teens and has seen the worst of human nature, he saw his fellow students slaughtered at school where they should be safe. He saw the NRA and their supporters attack and ridicule their deaths, politicians that are not attacking remain silent.
Truly wise beyond his years. Bravo, David. Our future is with our children.
oasis
(49,408 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)oasis
(49,408 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)1 of them receiving a B, 6 of them receiving a C with Senator Rockefeller and Bernie getting a D and 35 receiving an F
http://www.margieroswell.com/map_of_nra_grades_for_senators
George II
(67,782 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)and it was up front.
If you don't have a newer version, I will continue to search
Thanks
George II
(67,782 posts)....that he's voted for and voted against over the years.
David Hogg has done his homework.
sheshe2
(83,898 posts)Yes he has. I will listen to the children, the ones on the front lines watching their friends being slaughtered. While the NRA,and it's benefactors get impunity. Gun manufacturers and the politicians that will not even bother to support simple regulations can go to hell.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)liberals and NOT from actual Democrats.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)All the Senate Democratic caucus have "F" ratings.
Bernie is to the right of the Democratic Establishment on Guns with a D-.
lapucelle
(18,319 posts)Boxer, Lautenberg, and J Kerry are still listed as senators.
George II
(67,782 posts)....during each election cycle, then update them when the next election rolls around. My understanding is that should Sanders win in November, they'll assign a new rating for 2018.
Any Senator with a relatively good rating generally is from a right or very right leaning state - it reflects their constituency.
For example, the four Democrats that are toward the high end of the scale (whose ratings are 6-years old because they're all running again this year) are Tester - MT, Manchin - WV, Heitkamp - ND, and Donnelly - IN, all very conservative states.
Those have the worst ratings are from liberal states. Of the 49 Democratic/Independent Senators, only eight have "better" (in the eyes of the NRA) than Sanders.
In order from the top:
A Donnelly
A Manchin
Aq Heitkamp
A- Tester
B+ Casey
B Heinrich
C Warner
D Udall
D- Sanders
F Remaining 40 Democrats/Independent
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/15/52-senators-have-an-a-minus-nra-rating-or-higher-including-four-democrats/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.67a8af55ea2a
(note, this is a pay site)
lapucelle
(18,319 posts)and some currently in office like Booker and Harris are not on the list.
George II
(67,782 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You're welcome.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/15/52-senators-have-an-a-minus-nra-rating-or-higher-including-four-democrats/
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Bernie has a D-.
Since so many here have said that anyone to the right of Bernie is unacceptable, I think it's fair to point out where he is to the right of the Democratic "establishment."
BootinUp
(47,187 posts)brush
(53,861 posts)Tipperary
(6,930 posts)SunSeeker
(51,698 posts)And Bernie voted for it.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)musette_sf
(10,206 posts)wallyworld2
(375 posts)If anyone can improve and change, it is Bernie.
I cannot allow one issue to exclude someone like Senator Sanders.
jrthin
(4,837 posts)Civic Justice
(870 posts)I personally have no special affinity for him, and consider him as a vote split-er, even still today. I certainly don't see him as a viable candidate in 2020, definitely not as being representing Democrats.
I think he should likely sit down and review himself... because its a great deal he needs to face up to... It's for sure some in this site won't like it, but... this site is as claimed called Democratic Underground, not Independent Underground.
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210530322
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)continue to be the Junior Senator Senator from Vermont. I expect he will remain registered Independent and caucus with the Democrats. Hope that meets with your approval.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)To suggest Bernie could unite the Senate to do any of his positions. In my opinion, it takes someone with exceptional policy chops. Someone who can legislate not just talk.
sunRISEnow
(217 posts)I think the whole point of Bernie, is there is no change, ever.
Except when his free college was a fail and he took ownership of HRC's college plan.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Not outsiders who routinely attackthe party.
But thats just me. Im funny that way.
sheshe2
(83,898 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)we will see a repeat of a recent thing.
I cant mention it, but count on it.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)alarimer
(16,245 posts)In fact, I looked up the actual vote on this issue and it seems that 14 Democrats voted for it. 4 Senators did not vote (Feinstein and 3 Rs). Now, I have no idea why they abstained. Perhaps they were absent, or maybe too cowardly to take a position.
Regardless, it was going to pass no matter what. So blasting Sanders is a bit misleading, considering that, when Clinton called out Sanders for his support of this bill (she voted against it herself), he said he was willing to repeal it. I don't know if that will happen or not. I'm sure there is no way this bill will even come up in this Congress.
What I hate most about politics now is that everyone has to be all good or all bad. "You're either with us or against us." Either pure as the driven snow, or a total heel. Politics as professional wrestling.
Politicians are certainly not immune to criticism for their votes, past or present. Hillary voted for the Iraq War, after all. I could forgive that and still vote for her.
It's this black and white Twitter world I cannot stand. Everything, EVERYTHING, is more nuanced than we get in 280 characters.
wallyworld2
(375 posts)I did not vote for her in the primary.
And what ever politicking went on to get her to be the Democratic nominee, it didn't matter one bit in the general election to me.
Not when it came to the alternative.
I voted for Hillary in the general.
Aside from that, I know there would have been a chance she would listen to my views
And more importantly she would have staffed all her administration with qualified people not bent on dismantling the government and destroying NATO.
Cha
(297,655 posts)he speaks the truth.
Response to Tavarious Jackson (Original post)
Post removed
Cha
(297,655 posts)David Hogg speaks the inconvenient truth.
I love these KIDS!
OldHippieChick
(2,434 posts)This OP has nothing to do w/ Hillary. It is unnecessary to go there.
George II
(67,782 posts)Response to Post removed (Reply #26)
emulatorloo This message was self-deleted by its author.
emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)I suggest leaving the What about Hillary? rhetorical tactic to the Kellyanne Conways of this world.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I am shocked, shocked I tell you!!!!
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Longest economic expansion in American history
The President's strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993.
More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.
Highest homeownership in American history
A strong economy and fiscal discipline kept interest rates low, making it possible for more families to buy homes. The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years.
Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment
Since 1992, reading and math scores have increased for 4th, 8th, and 12th graders, math SAT scores are at a 30-year high, the number of charter schools has grown from 1 to more than 2,000, forty-nine states have put in place standards in core subjects and federal investment in education and training has doubled.
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship. At the same time, taxpayers have saved $18 billion due to the decline in student loan defaults, increased collections and savings from the direct student loan program.
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
President Clinton and Vice President Gore's new commitment to education technology, including the E-Rate and a 3,000 percent increase in educational technology funding, increased the percentage of schools connected to the Internet from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999.
Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Because of President Clinton's comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties, more police, and smart prevention, as well as common sense gun safety laws, the overall crime rate declined for 8 consecutive years, the longest continuous drop on record, and is at the lowest level since 1973.
100,000 more police for our streets
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, President Clinton enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.
Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Since the President signed the Brady bill in 1993, more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons have been stopped from buying guns. Gun crime has declined 40 percent since 1992.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
To help parents succeed at work and at home, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Over 20 million Americans have taken unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member.
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
The President pledged to end welfare as we know it and signed landmark bipartisan welfare reform legislation in 1996. Since then, caseloads have been cut in half, to the lowest level since 1968, and millions of parents have joined the workforce. People on welfare today are five times more likely to be working than in 1992.
Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth since 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton's Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
In his 1995 State of the Union Address, President Clinton challenged Americans to join together in a national campaign against teen pregnancy. The birth rate for teens aged 15-19 declined every year of the Clinton Presidency, from 60.7 per 1,000 teens in 1992 to a record low of 49.6 in 1999.
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
The Clinton Administration expanded efforts to provide mothers and newborn children with health care. Today, a record high 82 percent of all mothers receive prenatal care. The infant mortality rate has dropped from 8.5 deaths per 1,000 in 1992 to 7.2 deaths per 1,000 in 1998, the lowest rate ever recorded.
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union
Efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union.
Protected millions of acres of American land
President Clinton has protected more land in the lower 48 states than any other president. He has protected 5 new national parks, designated 11 new national monuments and expanded two others and proposed protections for 60 million acres of roadless areas in America's national forests.
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clinton's call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America has put its fiscal house in order. The deficit was $290 billion in 1993 and expected to grow to $455 billion by this year. Instead, we have a projected surplus of $237 billion.
Lowest government spending in three decades
Under President Clinton federal government spending as a share of the economy has decreased from 22.2 percent in 1992 to a projected 18.5 percent in 2000, the lowest since 1966.
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
President Clinton enacted targeted tax cuts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, $500 child tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in 35 years.
More families own stock than ever before
The number of families owning stock in the United States increased by 40 percent since 1992.
Most diverse cabinet in American history
The President has appointed more African Americans, women and Hispanics to the Cabinet than any other President in history. He appointed the first female Attorney General, the first female Secretary of State and the first Asian American cabinet secretary ever.
Return to Eight Years of Peace, Progress and Prosperity Index
>> Timeline of Major Actions >>
President and First Lady | Vice President and Mrs. Gore
Record of Progress | The Briefing Room
Gateway to Government | Contacting the White House
White House for Kids | White House History
White House Tours | Help | Text Only
Privacy Statement
What about that?
What about this?
Hillary Clinton
BY KIMBERLY AMADEO Updated May 06, 2018
Hillary Clinton's accomplishments have been centered around health care, the military, and families, especially women and children. The first two affect the economy because health care and defense are the two biggest expenses in the federal budget. The combined costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and military spending are $1.757 trillion, or 42 percent of total government spending.
First Lady
Hillary chaired the Task Force on Health Care Reform that drafted the 1993 Health Security Act. Although Congress didn't pass it, it laid the groundwork for the Affordable Care Act. It also cleared the way for the Children's Health Insurance Program. She worked with Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch who sponsored the bill. It received $24 billion, paid for by a 15 cent tax on cigarettes. She added $1 billion for an outreach program to help states publicize the program and sign up recipients. It provides health care to more than eight million children.
In 1994, she championed the Violence Against Women Act. That provides financial and technical assistance to states to help them develop programs that stop domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. In 1995, she also helped create the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women.
She supported the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. Representative Nancy Johnson, a Republican, sponsored the bill. It facilitates the adoption of foster children. It also allows states and local agencies greater flexibility on how to spend federal funds.
She lobbied Congress for the 1999 Foster Care Independence Act. Senators John Chafee, R-RI, and Tom DeIay, R-TX, sponsored the bill. The Act almost doubled federal spending for programs that help teenagers leave foster care after they turn 18. The programs help them complete their education, find jobs, and become self-sufficient.
U.S. Senator
Urged ratification of the START treaty in 2010. The treaty limits the limits the United States and Russia to 1,550 strategic deployed nuclear warheads. That's down from 2,200. It limits the number of deployed heavy nuclear bombers and missiles to 800. That's down from 1,600. Russia was already within those limits, but the United States was not. The treaty went into effect in 2011, will be fully implemented by 2018, and will remain in force until 2028.
Introduced the Pediatric Research Equity Act with Senator Mike DeWine, R-OH. This law requires drug companies to research how their products affect children. The Act changed drug labeling to disclose safety and dosage for children. That's lowered the danger of over-dosage for children with chronic diseases like epilepsy and asthma.
Worked with fellow NY Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer to get $21 billion in federal aid to help New York rebuild after the 9/11 attacks. She wrote the bill to get health care coverage for 9/11 first responders. That included health research related to the attacks. The rescue operations forced many police and firefighters into early retirement with debilitating chronic injuries and illnesses. Her successor, Senator Kirsten Hillibrand, got the bill passed.
Worked with Republicans to achieve full military health benefits to National Guard members and reservists. Expanded Family Medical Leave Act to families with wounded veterans.
Secretary of State
Took the lead on drafting and negotiating the Trans-Pacific partnership trade agreement. Once ratified, it would increase U.S. exports by $123.5 billion annually by 2025. Industries that benefit the most include electrical, autos, plastics and agriculture. (Source: "How Hillary Clinton Created a U.S. Business Promotion Machine," Bloomberg, January 10, 2013.)
Successfully concluded bilateral trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama in 2011. The Korea agreement removed almost 80 percent of tariffs, and increased exports by $10 billion. The Colombia agreement expanded U.S. exports by $1.1 billion.
Negotiated ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2012.
Called for the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan. Sided with CIA Director Leon Panetta who first told her it was possible. Overcame opposition from Vice-President Biden and Defense Secretary Bill Gates who were worried about political backlash if the raid failed.
Pushed the United Nations to impose sanctions on Iran in 2010. That created a recession in Iran. The economy shrank 6.6 percent in 2012 and 1.9 percent in 2013. That's because they cut Iran's oil exports in half. Clinton was personally involved in these diplomatic efforts and pushed them publicly. The sanctions made Iran agree to stop building nuclear weapons in 2015.
Instrumental in negotiating the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Accord. The developed and major developing nations agreed to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial level. They also agreed to pay $100 billion a year by 2020 to assist poor countries affected the most by climate change.
Timeline and Additional Accomplishments
1977: Founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. It did research and educate the public on children's issues. Joined Rose Law Firm. Appointed by President Carter to chair the board of the Legal Services Corporation.
1979 - 1982: First Lady of Arkansas during Governor Clinton's Administration. Became first woman partner of Rose Law Firm.
1982 - 1992: First Lady of Arkansas. Chaired Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, which created new state school standards. Founded Arkansas Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youth. Helped created Arkansas' first neonatal intensive care unit. On the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the Legal Services and Children's Defense Fund. Corporate board member of TCBY and Lafarge. First female board member of Wal-Mart (1986-1992.) Chaired American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession (1987 to 1991.) Arkansas Woman of the Year (1983.) Arkansas Mother of the Year (1984.)
1993 - 2001: First Lady during the Clinton administration. Chair of the Task Force on National Healthcare Reform. She continued to be a leading advocate for expanding health insurance coverage, ensuring children are properly immunized, and raising public awareness of health issues. She was the first First Lady with a postgraduate degree.
2000 - 2008: U.S. Senator from New York. Senate Committees: Armed Services; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Environment and Public Works; Budget; Aging. Member of Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. She also led the charge on the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act.
2009 - 2013: U.S. Secretary of State in the Obama administration. Opened Chinese markets to U.S. companies. (Additional Sources: "11 Accomplishments Hillary Clinton Should Be Touting on the Campaign Trail," FoxNews.com, June 3, 2015. "7 of Hillary's Biggest Accomplishments," HillaryClinton.com. "A List of Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments," AddictingInfo.com, April 13, 2015. "Citing Just One HRC Accomplishment Is Impossible," Huffington Post, May 24, 2016.)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
jrthin
(4,837 posts)sheshe2
(83,898 posts)murielm99
(30,761 posts)K&R
NBachers
(17,136 posts)LSFL
(1,109 posts)Sanders is not a Democrat. I would say he is not a progressive or even an independent either.
elmac
(4,642 posts)and progressive who admires the Nordic model of socialism. Slamming any progressive is a sure way of helping tRump and putin.
JI7
(89,264 posts)I see Democrats slammed here on a regular basis. Do you make a similar statement each time that happens?
shanny
(6,709 posts)The question I ask is to what is loyalty due, policies or a label?
mcar
(42,372 posts)I was asking elmac if she/he had the same response when Democrats get slammed regularly here.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)Progressive??
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I find it to be disgusting and reprehensible.
Cha
(297,655 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)defeat Trump. Not saying this just about Sanders...any independent or third party person.
Cha
(297,655 posts)facts under the rug.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)know what that actually means and would they WANT that?
I would, but I am a LIBERAL and a very far left liberal.
And I wish something ONE Thing even could be accomplished along this line. I dont get how after all these years , still nothing.
Well , not nothing actually, thanks to PRESIDENT OBAMA we have ACA
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)I am not sure he will get the youth vote this time.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)quit carrying water for Republican partys' pathetic try to take over more of Congress & Senate.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)he has been through something very few of us will ever experience.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)It helps protect a civil liberty.
TheSmarterDog
(794 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)You have to draw connections between multiple dots to make a connection.
Anti-gun violence advocates could accomplish the same results with legislation.
But anti-gun advocates need PLCAA to go away to sue dealers, distributors, and manufacturers into oblivion with emptional-based arguments.
TheSmarterDog
(794 posts)Anything indicating the contrary is NRA propaganda.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Response to Tavarious Jackson (Original post)
Post removed
Cha
(297,655 posts)who are Fighting for their Lives.
This has apparently upset you so much that you have nothing but insults.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)You mean we should not fight back?
mcar
(42,372 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)Exotica
(1,461 posts)here are the cold hard numbers for gun lobby money
I went and looked at Senators all the way back to 1990
These were the top Democratic Senators in terms of gun lobby money
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=Q13&cycle=All&recipdetail=S&sortorder=A&mem=Y&page=1
Specter, Arlen (D-PA) $47,900
Nelson, Ben (D-NE) $46,250
Obama, Barack (D) $44,371
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $33,713
Reid, Harry (D-NV) $30,250
Breaux, John (D-LA) $23,800
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $22,400
Manchin, Joe (D-WV) $20,700
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) $20,500
Hollings, Fritz (D-SC) $17,800
Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND) $14,800
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $14,250
Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $11,129
Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND) $8,000
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $8,000
Conrad, Kent (D-ND) $7,000
Heinrich, Martin (D-NM) $6,500
Warner, Mark (D-VA) $5,500
Heflin, Howell (D-AL) $4,950
Gore, Al (D) $4,250
Bradley, Bill (D) $4,050
Kerry, John (D-MA) $3,250
Edwards, John (D) $2,550
Tester, Jon (D-MT) $2,500
Begich, Mark (D-AK) $2,000
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) $2,000
Ford, Wendell H (D-KY) $2,000
Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $2,000
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) $2,000
Udall, Mark (D-CO) $1,500
Miller, Zell (D-GA) $1,000
Webb, Jim (D-VA) $500
Duckworth, Tammy (D-IL) $50
In the House
Peterson, Collin (D-MN) $96,500
Rahall, Nick (D-WV) $81,900
Mollohan, Alan B (D-WV) $79,800
Boyd, Allen (D-FL) $78,600
Skelton, Ike (D-MO) $78,350
Holden, Tim (D-PA) $76,950
Lucas, Frank D (R-OK) $73,324
Boucher, Rick (D-VA) $71,600
Dingell, John D (D-MI) $61,500
Bishop, Sanford (D-GA) $58,815
Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX) $57,150
Hilliard, Earl F (D-AL) $56,050
furthermore
they (Open Secrets) co-mingle things when a person is a member of congress but also has run for POTUS
here is the link for ALL cycles (cumulative totals in gun lobby money (not all is from the NRA) given directly to a candidate for the last 28 years (since 1990)
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=Q13&cycle=All&recipdetail=S&sortorder=A&mem=Y&page=1
All Senators
Candidate Amount
McCain, John (R-AZ) $618,113
Cruz, Ted (R-TX) $460,367
Rubio, Marco (R-FL) $244,019
Paul, Rand (R-KY) $231,587
snip
Obama, Barack (D) $44,371
snip
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $33,713
Murkowski, Frank H (R-AK) $33,700
Fischer, Deb (R-NE) $33,335
Gorton, Slade (R-WA) $33,300
snip
Helms, Jesse (R-NC) $11,400
Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $11,129
snip
notice those totals, that is all moneys given to Obama, Clinton and Sanders since 1990, no matter what race (Rep, Sen, POTUS)
now here is 2008 POTUS
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=Q13&cycle=2008&recipdetail=P&mem=N&sortorder=U
Presidential Candidates
1 McCain, John (R) $515,128
2 Thompson, Fred (R) $75,575
3 Romney, Mitt (R) $72,675
4 Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) $50,450
5 Huckabee, Mike (R) $25,300
6 Paul, Ron (R) $24,813
7 Obama, Barack (D) $22,337
8 Gilmore, Jim (R) $16,950
9 Hunter, Duncan (R) $13,009
10 Tancredo, Tom (R) $7,625
11 Clinton, Hillary (D) $7,000
12 Richardson, Bill (D) $2,750
13 Edwards, John (D) $2,550
14 Nader, Ralph (I) $2,450
15 Brownback, Sam (R) $1,950
16 Barr, Bob (L) $1,000
17 Thompson, Tommy (R) $500
18 Baldwin, Chuck (3) $250
now 2012
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=Q13&recipdetail=P&sortorder=U&mem=N&cycle=2012
7 Obama, Barack (D) $22,034
and finally
2016
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=Q13&recipdetail=P&sortorder=U&mem=N&cycle=2016
Presidential Candidates
1 Trump, Donald (R) $814,236
2 Carson, Ben (R) $119,566
3 Walker, Scott (R) $39,510
4 Fiorina, Carly (R) $32,517
5 Bush, Jeb (R) $31,490
6 Clinton, Hillary (D) $26,713
7 Kasich, John (R) $20,399
8 Huckabee, Mike (R) $11,751
9 Sanders, Bernie (D) $11,129
do the maths
Totals since 1990
Bernie
Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $11,129
all from 2016, but still it is only 11,129 usd total from 28 years (that's like 750th in overall Congress/Potus)
Hillary
total since 1990 all races
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $33,713
2008 she got 7,000
and in 2016 $26,713
adds up
and Obama
total since 1990
Obama, Barack (D) $44,371
7 Obama, Barack (D) $22,337 2008
7 Obama, Barack (D) $22,034 2012
adds up all around
Bernie is well past 700th place in government elected officials when it comes to total gun lobby money (when you add house, POTUS, Senate totals together)
and its disingenuous to try to tar him with 11K when Hillary got around triple that (in less time too) and Obama almost 4 times as much total in even less than Clinton, let alone Bernie
I am not a Sanders fangirl, I supported and voted for Hillary in the primaries, I do NOT (as stated above) want him to run in 2020, but these divisive attacks on Sanders (and thus the 10 to 15 million plus supporters he has who will vote) are ripping the party apart
I want to focus on 2018 NOW, and also, after 2020 and what we can do to rid the world of TRUMP
not beat dead horses and rehash 2016 primaries, or give legit Democratic voters (twice as many Hillary 2008 primary voters voted for McCain as did Bernie primary voters voting for Trump in 2016) reason to say 'fuck it all, I am not voting'
Bernie has close to zero chance of ever being POTUS, shredding things up only hurts us Democratic Party members and the country and actually the world
I hope you can see where I am coming from
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)It's about his vote on the Brady bill.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)his taking any gun lobby money as a sign he is a pro-gun fanatic. I am simply trying to add context. I hope he is crushed if he runs, BUT I do not want to alienate his huge amount of supporters. We need them badly.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)The diversion is -- Look Over There at Democrats! Enough of that. It's transparent what these diversions are attempting.
Speaking of alienating supporters -- how long will it be only one way?? Seems to me that the majority of people who voted against him should get the red carpet treatment, as well. He needs them worse than the other way around.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)something which I explicitly stated I am not, ie. a Sanders supporter.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)from the NRA and implicate Democrats so that Bernie's votes on gun legislation are not an issue.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)But my all means, carry-on with your attempts to imply you have the ability to determine that people's actual words mean the opposite of what they actually and clearly state.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)Your concern about Bernie supporters, which is a bit far-fetched at this point. I'm still wondering when the concern will be about the literally millions of people who aren't socialists and when the reciprocal outreach starts. It works both ways, and it's way past time.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)As for it being 'far-fetched' to give a toss about the 13 plus million votes he got (and thus these people as 2018 and 2020 voters), I say it is a good thing you have no power to dictate Democratic campaign strategy.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)Sanders. Not so much concerned about the Democrats. Thanks for the info! I sort of read that from your posts, but your clarity is appreciated.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)R B Garr
(16,976 posts)They sounded very familiar. Right back atcha! Thanks again for the clarity. Welcome to DU.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)like a freshly cleaned windowpane. I refuse to let you use sophistry-based rhetoric to try and imply I am not 100% pro-Democratic Party. Welcome back to you.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)the NRA money was used as a diversion away from Sanders' questionable gun legislation votes. Why on earth would young people questioning Sanders' votes be such a threat to you?? Why would they be a threat to Sanders' "supporters"?? It really makes no sense. You added no context, just a diversion.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)projecting your wishes unto me. Sanders will not win the primaries, but we also do not need to alienate a shit tonne of his supporters (who, I repeat from above), had half as many defections to Trump than Clinton had amongst her voters to MCain in 2008) via non-stop divisive attacks.
If you want to truly change minds, then go try and convince an actual Sanders supporter to stay with our party. That will be (or should be, if done with some tact and skill) far easier than trying to flip a Trump voter.
Even better yet, go and try to get the tens of millions who did not vote at all to vote this time, and vote for our candidates. That is what I am working on.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)at hand. I notice you neglect to mention how David Hogg calling out Sanders votes is such a threat to you. How is it "divisive" that a young man who was victimized by a school shooting is questioning a Senator's questionable votes?? How on earth does that have anything to do with Sanders supporters?? It really makes no sense except that you would rather introduce some supposedly negative info about Democrats in a "what about Democrats" way. It's rather obvious -- looks familiar.
I'm glad you have illustrated here that the red carpet treatment is deemed only one way. That position is unsustainable. There are still way more people like me out there, so truly changing minds isn't just one-sided. Trump should be enough of a menace that I doubt people need to be concerned about people who voted for Sanders two years ago, or anyone else for that matter.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)I posted what I did to give context to what many, in not just this thread, but other threads attempt to portray Sanders in general, (despite a D-minus NRA rating) to be a pro-gun fanatic because he got any money ever from the gun lobby. This is attempted to be done by selectively singling out people some have a grudge with, and use divisive posturing to try and win internet chatboard points.
Bernie most definitely voted wrongly on that bill. I have no quarrel with saying that. I do not want him to even run. Hogg's OWN Senator, Bill Nelson did as well, and was not named, but to point that out is, according to you, diversionary, as it doesn't splice well into the narrative, a narrative that takes legit points and uses them in such fashion and manner as to churn up divisiveness and mistrust internally within our party (as the vast majority of Sanders voter and current supporters are still Democrats).
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)"pro-gun fanatic" when that is certainly not what is happening. I recognized your tactics, which you have elaborated here as being concerned primarily about Sanders' image in relation to his gun votes. So your supposed "context" is to throw some tangential NRA money out there hoping that will provide a "what about Democrats" diversion. Reading your responses has just clarified that, so thank you again for fleshing out your positions.
David Hogg isn't stupid in how he evaluated Bernie's stance, and he's not stupid that Bernie ran for President before and is obviously trying to exert influence over national dialogues. It's obvious you are threatened by that and now have to throw David Hogg's Senator into the mix, as if to discredit David Hogg. It is you who are concerned about splicing the narrative -- taking David Hogg's tweet and trying to churn up divisiveness and mistrust of him because he dared to question one Senator's questionable voting record. Why would you be so threatened about "Sanders supporters" if David Hogg is questioning his "progressive" position on gun control because of the way he voted? Sanders' image seems to be the priority. David Hogg is an intelligent young man who should not be demonized for his questions.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)I really could not care less about what you want to assume or project.
Now, go play with someone else, I have wasted enough time with you.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)Whataboutism is getting old because it only serves to add divisiveness. It's about time the hypocrisy is called out -- the constant "what about Democrats". You've defined your own posts -- I haven't. Thanks again for clarifying! It was very obvious.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Exotica
(1,461 posts)simply trying to stop party-wrecking infighting.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)(despite a D-minus NRA rating) to be a pro-gun fanatic because he got any money ever from the gun lobby".
It is not just because he got any money ever from the gun lobby. There is much more
Exotica
(1,461 posts)who also voted like Bernie did.
For the LAST time (not so much directed at you per se) I do NOT want Bernie to even run in 2020. It will rip our Party apart (erm DOH..........).
Some of the thing things I find he stands for that I agree with are universal, government overseen healthcare (single-payer or some other scheme) and free or ultra low-cost public tertiary education. Many other Democratic Party members support these as well.
I think he is atrocious on his insistence to outreach to Trump Rethugs, and also was HUGELY offended (I am a highly successful PoC) when he gave some rote 'ghetto this, ghetto that' reply when asked about about race in America.
A novel idea...................Go have a go at people who actually (right here on this this very thread and elsewhere) DEFEND his vote (and by extension the others as well).
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)He even said outright that Bernie doesn't get money from the NRA, which was obviously a generic qualifier to his comment because Bernie has gotten money, but the point was that it was inconsequential to the point David was making. He was talking about the wrong positions that Bernie has taken and it was apparently a threatening comment to those who are trying to get Twitter accounts shut down and trotting out Whataboutisms about Democrats.
This whole sidebar is frankly not believable. It looks like just an opportunity to smear Democrats as a preemptive strike all in the name of "unity" -- and all totally simpatico with Sanders supporters as it was ever about them.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)There it is. Wow. Doesn't look so progressive. This is why the vetting is way overdue.
jalan48
(13,883 posts)Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)and they didn't need to from Bernie. He was already on their side.
JI7
(89,264 posts)Hogg is referring to Sanders voting to protect gun industry from lawsuits
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Hes a good kid with a bright future, and I'm sure it's just what the fleas in his ear have been saying is needed for mainline party elevation, nothing finer for our leadership then getting their proteges to join the circular firing squad.
Cha
(297,655 posts)calling him out for.
David already said in the OP that he hasn't taken money.. his quote is this..
"but what he has done is made it way harder for gun manufacturers to be sued".
I commend David for getting the facts out there.. no way should this be swept under the rug.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)Cheers
Cha
(297,655 posts)He's FEARLESS.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)acting like they're running for potus?
I'm trusting David Hogg has his reason for calling out who he did.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)In the Senate, only one Dem who voted yes (out of 15 who did) is still in it (Bill Nelson of Florida), and other than him, all are from small, mostly rural states.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219#position
YEAs
Baucus (D-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
In the House 60 Democratic Caucus members (Sanders included of course) voted for it
names of interest bolded
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll534.xml#Y
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/h534
Cramer, Bud AL 5th
Davis, Artur AL 7th
Berry, Robert AR 1st
Ross, Mike AR 4th
Thompson, Mike CA 1st
Cardoza, Dennis CA 18th
Costa, Jim CA 20th
Baca, Joe CA 43rd
Sanchez, Loretta CA 47th
Salazar, John CO 3rd
Boyd, Allen FL 2nd
Bishop, Sanford GA 2nd
Marshall, Jim GA 3rd
Barrow, John GA 12th
Scott, David GA 13th
Bean, Melissa IL 8th
Costello, Jerry IL 12th
Chandler, Ben KY 6th
Melancon, Charles LA 3rd
Michaud, Michael ME 2nd
Stupak, Bart MI 1st
Dingell, John MI 15th
Peterson, Collin MN 7th
Taylor, Gene MS 4th
Skelton, Ike MO 4th
Berkley, Shelley NV 1st
Higgins, Brian NY 27th
Butterfield, G.K. NC 1st
McIntyre, Mike NC 7th
Pomeroy, Earl ND
Strickland, Ted OH 6th
Kaptur, Marcy OH 9th
Ryan, Tim OH 17th
Boren, Dan OK 2nd
DeFazio, Peter OR 4th
Kanjorski, Paul PA 11th
Murtha, John PA 12th
Holden, Tim PA 17th
Spratt, John SC 5th
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie SD
Davis, Lincoln TN 4th
Cooper, Jim TN 5th
Gordon, Bart TN 6th
Tanner, John TN 8th
Ford, Harold TN 9th
Hinojosa, Rubén TX 15th
Reyes, Silvestre TX 16th
Edwards, Chet TX 17th
Ortiz, Solomon TX 27th
Cuellar, Henry TX 28th
Green, Gene TX 29th
Matheson, Jim UT 2nd
Sanders, Bernie VT
Boucher, Rick VA 9th
Larsen, Rick WA 2nd
Baird, Brian WA 3rd
Mollohan, Alan WV 1st
Rahall, Nick WV 3rd
Kind, Ron WI 3rd
Obey, Dave WI 7th
Cha
(297,655 posts)man who was in the line of Fire.
I'm interested in what he has to say.
Exotica
(1,461 posts)I explained my rationale above, and surely he should also call out his present Senator, Nelson, who voted the same way.
Cha
(297,655 posts)Exotica
(1,461 posts)questionseverything
(9,659 posts)these divisive attacks on Sanders (and thus the 10 to 15 million plus supporters he has who will vote) are ripping the party apart
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Last edited Sun May 13, 2018, 08:49 PM - Edit history (1)
His account was reported repeatedly for this video and is now Temp suspended. He did nothing wrong. It should be OK to call out a politician for their policies or votes..
https://twitter.com/CrippledJerk
Cha
(297,655 posts)Temp suspended?
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Yes. I tweeted him some love
Cha
(297,655 posts)I don't tweet yet.. so does "temp" mean until the Admins figure out that he wasn't breaking any rules?
Mahalo for sending him LOVE , Tavarious.
There are a lot of kindred spirits who support David Hogg and the KIDS who send their LOVE, too.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)He'll be back if he is not already.
Cha
(297,655 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)elmac
(4,642 posts)so lets just forget he's for the working men and women, social security, medicare for all, ect... He's got an D- rating with the NRA, boo noo, cry me a river
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)It's important to them.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)sued for what? it's not like gun corporations are hiding lung cancer like ciggie corps did.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)for their Cause.. March for Our Lives.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Tell me no or otherwise I might be done here.
Cha
(297,655 posts)Don't worry about someone who would do that.. just keep fighting for Justice and Reality like are you.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)it had to be this way.
mcar
(42,372 posts)What do you mean by this?
Cha
(297,655 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Response to Tavarious Jackson (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Ill continue supporting Sen. Sanders any day of the week despite any concern David Hoggs has on his voting records.
JI7
(89,264 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I'm not a Bernie supporter, but I agree with this legislation. There was coordinated lawsuits against the gun manufacturers in order to try and bankrupt them. If the same thing was happening against car manufacturers due to drunk driving I would expect the same legislation to pass protecting then.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)that later got into a drunk driving accident?
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)uponit7771
(90,364 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)LAS14
(13,783 posts)... discussions are prohibited. I think this is a really interesting discussion and don't want to prohibit it, but I'm curious.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)Anyone maligning corporations should also be against the stranglehold the NRA has on our country or it's just hypocrisy.
Thanks to David Hogg for bringing this up.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)but this kids wont be fooled.
I admire David Hogg more with each passing day.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)and a born leader.
He's not afraid of anyone.
Cha
(297,655 posts)truth and a fact and he says it.. not caring about any blowback.
He's Fighting for KIDS' and Adults' LIVES.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)precious peeps. They're out there fighting for all of us!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Mon May 14, 2018, 08:42 AM - Edit history (1)
I just can't imagine who would have swarmed that account to silence it.
Cha
(297,655 posts)bunch of people don't like something.. that's enough reason for it to be temporarily suspended?
Can't people who like it.. turn it around? Will the Admins re-instate him once they find out he's not breaking any rules?
He posted about what David Hogg said.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's stalking, and harassment, and a clear abuse of the rules! Their admins suck... and I'd think that with an organization as big as Twitter is, they would have come up with an effective way to deal with stalkers and harassment, instead of mob-rule and anarchy.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)and I don't alert just because it doesn't fit my narrative. The MAGA people for instance. I don't alert them, I block them.
Cha
(297,655 posts)one of these days!
You'd think Twiiter would have a better system than getting an account suspended just because a mob of people didn't like it.
I could see if it were heinous or grotesque.. but that was David Hogg telling the truth.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)She is a lot of fun. Love her.
Cha
(297,655 posts)Speaking of twitter accounts getting temp suspended.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)cause pants-soiling among a certain group.
I'm thinking that's why he was swarmed.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)It was not the people on the left who agree with the content of that tweet and video.
It was not the people on the right because the video was a criticism of a prominent figure on the left.
It was not the people in the center who do not feel strongly one way or another about the issue.
Once you eliminate all of those people, only one group remains and see some of their allies posting in this thread.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Interesting.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Enough of this divisive bullshit.
Please note that several Democrats also voted for this bill:
Reid
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Baucus (D-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Pryor (D-AZ)
And Independents
Jeffords
Sannders
4 not voting, including Feinstein. The bill passed 65-31. Assuming the 3 R non-votes would have voted yes, there was no way this bill was not going to pass, even if all Dems voted against it.
So it is pretty fucking disingenuous at best to call out any one of those Senators. I get it, you hate Sanders for whatever reason. But I for one am pretty fucking sick of the smears.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and disqualify them from being the DEMOCRATIC Party's nominee in 2020.
Power 2 the People
(2,437 posts)Last edited Mon May 14, 2018, 03:14 PM - Edit history (1)
So much Bernie bashing on this board. I've never seen anything like it. He is one of the few senators who has been unwavering in his promotion of true FDR Democratic ideals. He is an Independent because the Democratic party moved too far to the right and he wasn't on-board with the DLC and Third Way Dems. We are a big tent party.Let's stop destroying each other
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)This is not Bernie bashing. It's about gun control.
Cha
(297,655 posts)BS' Vote. Not progressive.
You don't have any clue what you're talking about.. The Democratic Party has an excellent Platform..
alarimer
(16,245 posts)It's just another internet trash heap.
ecstatic
(32,731 posts)about it. There has been ZERO reprieve from this nightmare since dump took office. Every day, more drama!
And the general consensus is that Bernie's unfounded accusations about being treated unfairly, combined with him taking forever to concede, cost us the election (along with Comey, Russia, voter suppression, hacked machines, etc...).
If or when trump is removed, I think you'll see a lot of the anger subside, but there's no way for it to subside as long as trump is in the White House.
ecstatic
(32,731 posts)will somehow be up for grabs again. Of course, thousands have died since his original vote... but.... better late than never?
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Link to tweet
remember ciggie corps? they lied about lung cancer, Honda airbags?
we're ALL (well most Ds are I hope) for Gun Control.
I personally want insurance required for ALL gun owners.
Where insurance corp requires gun safe/gun locks, training classes- extra insurance if gun is carried, extra insurance after first couple personal guns.
No gun ownership for under 18s without an adult guardian supervising the youth & adding childs name to insurance policy.
Heavy Federal taxes after first 500 rounds of bullets bought a year, per Insured gun.
They can do it for cars and trucks (registration, insurance & yearly inspection)- do it for guns.
And turning over to Mexico court system-American citizens over any guns Mexico traces to American straw sellers.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)David Hogg.
That said this is a unnecessary mistake on his part. Not necessary at all and will lose him some support. A certain group puts the individual above the issues.
Cha
(297,655 posts)why should David Hogg be afraid of those who can't handle it.
He is Fearless.
Link to tweet
Created by a group of musicians and artists who are joining the fight to #StopGunViolence
Link to tweet
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)There is a way to build coalitions. Unnecessarily going at someone when a good portion of that persons base is for gun control is an easily avoidable mistake.
Hogg is about building a coalition of like minded people. He just went after a deity to many like minded people, unnecessarily.
A simple he seems to have evolved on the issue now that he is looking for votes on a national scale would have been a bit better. Sanders was what he was on this issue. Today he has evolved to a better and more progressive position.
Cha
(297,655 posts)David Hogg is Fearless.. he has been building coalitions with those who can handle the truth.
I'm sick of those who can't.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I would hope Hogg wouldnt take NRA money.
Its tough for me to make comparisons between the actions of Hogg and a career politician.
Cha
(297,655 posts)nra money.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I go all in.
ecstatic
(32,731 posts)He does his homework. I'm really impressed by him.